ArticleRadiation research2020
Analysis of Cataract in Relationship to Occupational Radiation Dose Accounting for Dosimetric Uncertainties in a Cohort of U.S. Radiologic Technologists.
Article in Radiation research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low-dose radiation exposure and risk of self-reported cataract in Fukushima nuclear emergency workers.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- A Historical Survey of Key Epidemiological Studies of Ionizing Radiation Exposure.Radiation research · 2024Review
- A generalisation of the method of regression calibration and comparison with Bayesian and frequentist model averaging methods.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Recommendations on statistical approaches to account for dose uncertainties in radiation epidemiologic risk models.International journal of radiation biology · 2024Review
- A generalisation of the method of regression calibration.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A generalisation of the method of regression calibration.Research square · 2023Article
- Low- and moderate-dose non-cancer effects of ionizing radiation in directly exposed individuals, especially circulatory and ocular diseases: a review of the epidemiology.International journal of radiation biology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cataract is one of the major morbidities in the U.S. population and it has long been appreciated that high and acutely delivered radiation doses of 1 Gy or more can induce cataract. Some more recent studies, in particular those of the U.S. Radiologic Technologists, have suggested that cataract may be induced by much lower, chronically delivered doses of ionizing radiation. It is well recognized that dosimetric measurement error can substantially alter the shape of the radiation dose-response relationship and thus, the derived study risk estimates, and can also inflate the variance of the estimates. In the current study, we evaluate the impact of uncertainties in eye-lens absorbed doses on the estimated risk of cataract in the U.S. Radiologic Technologists' Monte Carlo Dosimetry System, using both absolute and relative risk models. Among 11,345 cases we show that the inflation in the standard error for the excess relative risk (ERR) is generally modest, at most approximately 20% of the unadjusted standard error, depending on the model used for the baseline risk. The largest adjustment results from use of relative risk models, so that the ERR/Gy and its 95% confidence intervals change from 1.085 (0.645, 1.525) to 1.085 (0.558, 1.612) after adjustment. However, the inflation in the standard error of the excess absolute risk (EAR) coefficient is generally minimal, at most approximately 0.04% of the standard error.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.